Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future

Turkey and Iran both have rich histories that separate them from other countries in the Islamic world. They have both been the head of large-scale global empires. They have also been open to the western world and have experimented with democracy. The Turkish democracy was helped along by the US, who saw the Turks as a bulwark against Russian communism. Iranian democracy was quashed because it was viewed to go against the interests of big oil companies. This led to a reign of an ostentatious Shah and the eventual rise of clerical power. The type of Islam dominant in each country also has helped contribute to the current conditions, with Turkey more accepting of rule by secular powers. The author proposes that Europe and the west should be more willing to engage the two countries. Turkey is one of the few countries with relations with all the players in the middle east (including Israel). They are eager to be peace brokers. Having them as an active member of the EU could provide huge benefits to Europe. They have have managed to increase religious freedom and democracy at the same time. Iran also has reached out to the US to increase partnership in the fight against common enemies (such as the Taliban), only to be rebuffed by the US.
America currently partners primarily with Saudi Arabia and Israel in the Middle East. The Israeli relationship is a long-standing sympathy play due in a significant part to the horrors of the holocaust. Saudi Arabia is an odd bedfellow that is really only there because of the oil. The country has a very corrupt, conservative monarchy that seems to go against many of the western values. However, they sit atop one of the largest deposits of fossil fuels in the world.
Peace in the middle east will require some give and take. Palestinians and Israelis will each need to give and take somewhat to achieve their peace. The western world must also better understand everything that is in play. Turkey and Iran are both willing to help. Will we continue to fight against them, or are we willing to let them help us understand the region?

Power Ambition Glory: The Stunning Parallels Between Great Leaders of the Ancient World and Today...and the Lessons You Can Learn

Steve Forbes read a book by John Prevas and eventually got together with him to a write a book combining biographies of ancient leaders with business leaders of today. The ancient leaders had many positive traits as well as weaknesses that led to their downfall. In some cases, the traits made them good for building an empire, but not so great at running it. The stories of modern leaders include some born in the 1800s, though have had their heyday in the past few decades. Some of the contemporary cases are intriguing. The positive leadership empire building of GE and Chrysler don't look so great right now. This does show that even great "empires" can crumble shortly after the tenure of the seemingly great leaders. The impenetrable foundation that was set up may not be so great after all.
Corporate leaders also feel like better comparisons than political leaders. The "path to the top" of many of the ancient leaders seemed to more closely resemble what is needed to get to the top of a major corporation. Empire building and conquests was also a key part of the activities of ancient leaders. This is done much more in business than in countries these days. The important of "employees" vs. mercenaries is also a key concern. (However, you can also see many similarities between Agustus and pandering to the masses and current populism and Trumpism.)

Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling

The title accurately describes the centerpiece of this history. It makes diversions into the papal politics of the day and his "rivalry" with Raphael. Michelangelo was originally working on a tomb for the pope. However, the Sistine chapel ended up coming out to take priority. The pope was a strong figure who always seemed to get his way. Michelangelo, however, was portrayed as also being strongly opinionated, and unwilling to compromise.

A little is given on Michelangelo's family and personal life. He was shown to have some trouble at home. However, nothing was extreme. As for personal life, he is seen as being fairly conservative religiously, and somewhat aloof from personal relationships. (This is in contrast to Raphael who is shown as a socialite with many amorous relationships.)

The pope Julius that he worked under was shown as a megalomaniac, who saw biblical prophecies dedicated to him. He felt dedicated to reclaim papal lands. He did not create many friends.

Michelangelo had some artistic friends and trainers. However, he tended to be more of an introvert.

The painting of the chapel was hard work, but done with many assistants. Michelangelo's commission to do it was ironically initially given as an action to make him fail. However, Michelangelo succeeded greatly on the fresco. Other artists (including Raphael) have later adapted many of the styles shown in the Michelangelo's work.

The work is a fairly dispassionate story of Michelangelo's work, bringing out the political and artistic context in which he was working.